This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth

Steele: "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process. ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy ..."

Well then OK Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate. I will accept these responses as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals along with evidence and questions.

Let's see if you live up to your own challenge, I agree to share your response without editing any of your words in a stand alone post. This first installment looks at your introduction and your pet theory about rising CO2 not impacting Sierra Nevada temperatures.

Heartland Burnett: Jim, Thanks for being with us today. If you would, tell us about your background.Steele: I'd be glad to, it's not a simple answer, it'll take me about five minutes. While I was working on my masters in biology I worked summers at SFSU - Sierra Nevada field campus. It's a rustic environmental education and research center about 40 miles north of Lake Tahoe. Dr, James Kelley was the Dean of Science at the time. He saw my passion and skills and appointed me as the new director. I'd planned on pursuing a PhD, but that position allowed me to generate my own research and build the whole program. So I served as director for the next 25 years.

~ ~ ~At the outset I want to mention that from my communications with various folks I understand that Mr. Steele left behind nice memories. He did good work and was the inspiration and organizing force behind a large meadow restoration project that did a lot of good, (though it hasn't 'saved' that meadow from their current drought). He is also recalled as an accomplished bird watcher and a friendly guy to work with.

I want to make clear that I have no issue with that guy. My concern is with the malicious LandscapesandCycles horror stories and the uncalled for slander that he is actively inflicting on respectable professional scientists.

I want to force the question: Why is it OK to broadcast misinformation and these malicious lies intent on confusing rather than clarify the available science? Climate science is sound and We The People have a right to hear about it without the constant crossfire of shrill malicious lies and slander.____________________________

Steele: I was soon hired by the US Forest Service, to monitor bird populations in the Tahoe National Forest. One of our meadows began drying out and suffered a population crash and now people were saying that's just what global warming theory was saying,

~ ~ ~Isn't it true that this meadow had long standing hydrology issues related to a timber railroad grade and drainage features that were put in many decades earlier?

Who was saying that Meadow's drying was because of global warming? Source please? Newspaper, talk, or a scientific study?____________________________

Steele: but after examining temperature data from the near by USHCN network I discovered the maximum temperatures at Tahoe which was near us and Yosemite were actually lower than they had been in the early 1930s and 40s.(b) To believe that global warming was causing detrimental heat stress maximum temperature would have had to been much higher. But, they weren't, so that was one of my first steps.

~ ~ ~ You haven't established who was suggesting that particular meadow was dying because of global warming. Was it a couple Letters to the Editor or did it come from a more reputable source? Does it matter to you?____________________________

Steele: It also became obvious that the claims that a rising average temperature was driven by rising minimum temperatures. Minimum trend is usually driven by landscape changes and urbanizing effects.

~ ~ ~Where do you get that idea? You're mistaken.While urbanization and landscape changes do increase local minimums, so does atmospheric greenhouse gases, although night clouds play the greatest role and both do it on a global scale.

Even though repeat heat waves brought sizzling hot days, overnight temperatures broke far more records: According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), in July there were 6,106 record high minimum temperatures, and "only" 2,722 record high daytime temperatures. ...

I spoke with Phil Duffy, Climate Central’s chief scientist, about why nighttime lows are warming faster than the daytime highs. He replied that the answer isn’t straightforward, and then he referred me to research that has shown that an increase in cloudiness (as well as a few other factors) has warmed nights more than days.

During the day, clouds both warm and cool, as they act like a blanket to reflect heat back to the surface (warming), but they also reflect sunlight back to space (cooling). At night, they only warm temperatures, acting like an insulating blanket. Thus, nights warm more than the days, and this is exactly what climate models predict. In fact, this is a good example of climate models making a prediction (warmer nights), and then having the prediction born out by the data. ... link to the full story

~ ~ ~Incidentally Jim, what do you think of the current grim reality unfolding in California? Do you really think that's unrelated to decades old global warming trends? How are local landscapes going to be independent of that?

Lake Tahoe: Drought, climate change threatening winter, way of life at iconic landmark.

Steele: And from what I was seeing up there, was that the climate in Sierra Nevada's was not very sensitive to rising CO2. Without a rise in maximum there was no evidence to support the theoretical arguments that CO2 was accumulating heat.

~ ~ ~

You silly, that's not how it works!

Increasing greenhouse gases hold in more heat and energy on a "global" scale. That increasing heat is diffuse but it gets herded up and moved around the global according to atmospheric pressure systems, currents and weather patterns and yes local landscapes. Still you simply can't expect a direct correlation between global greenhouse gas levels and some local record. But, please notice what happens as you pull back from the local to the regional scale. Plenty of indicators of global warming there. Why do you ignore that?

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

4.2 Comparison of annual trends: 1918–2006 with 1970–2006It is understood that forcings (i.e., natural and anthropogenic) may interact in a nonlinear fashion, thus affecting temperatures across different time and spatial scales. To evaluate this, we compared annual trends across different regions for two different time periods, 1918–2006 and 1970–2006.

The most prominent feature in this comparison (Fig. 5) was accelerated warming trends from 1970–2006. Statewide Tmax trends between 1970–2006 (+0.27◦C dec−1) were more than three times as large as the trend between 1918–2006 (+0.07◦C dec−1), while Tmin trends between 1970–2006 (+0.31◦C dec−1) were almost twice as large as trends between 1918– 2006 (+0.17◦C dec−1).

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

11/29/2016 I started this blog to debate climate science contrarians, I've done my part, they, the intellectual cowards for their part have run off and hide within their hermetically sealed echo chambers, safe to continue broadcasting more stupidity mixed with anger and hostility rather than constructive learning.

Now this horrendous election. Its changed everything and this blog, not sure where it's going, eventually I need to start another one, one less intent on futility reaching out for what ain't there and more focused on presenting a different perspective for its own sake, and to hell with the rest of it, it's too heart breaking.

I see Dec 19th as a key date. If there isn't serious focused engagement of the public in numbers that surprise everyone, well the oligarch will have their way with us.

Americans need to let Trump know from the gitgo, we do not approve of his con job and he better not get too crazy because he's earned zero good faith or honeymoon considerations. We shall see.

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: